Members, you are aware that the Speaker put no time limit on the first round of speakers. However, so many Members wish to speak that I must impose a time limit of five minutes. I must also issue a health warning that even with the five-minute limit it may not be possible to call everyone.

I congratulate the Minister for moving the motion and for providing us with an opportunity to assess critically the Department for Regional Development's proposed 10-year transportation strategy. It is fair to say that the regional transportation strategy must complement the regional development strategy and enable its realisation. Transport investment has been badly neglected for decades. For many years there has been no funding in either rail or road. In the western area there is a backlog of roads maintenance, amounting to almost £40 million of the £120 million total cost.

Northern Ireland as a European region, and as a region in this island, can have a proper modern transport system only if it is integrated into those wider systems. I welcome the recognition of the European context in the regional transportation strategy, but there must be a stronger collaboration with the Republic of Ireland.

Equality of treatment across Northern Ireland is a priority for the Assembly, and that is recognised in the Programme for Government. For a long time, I have said that balanced regional development can be pursued only if transport investment is targeted in particular transport modes and across the region, in urban and in rural areas. Past transport planning and investment neglect must be reversed.

Many of us who travel to work in Belfast, even to Parliament Buildings, recognise the congestion in the Greater Belfast area. There is daily evidence that that is the biggest single problem, given the high car usage. In many of our rural areas road transport is the only mode of transport. There is no railway other than the lines from Belfast to Derry, Bangor and Carrickfergus. The high-speed Belfast to Dublin Enterprise train demonstrates what can happen with proper investment in a modern rail transport system.

To have modern transport there must be investment. The real challenge is that £950 million will be needed over the next 10 years to supplement the planned expenditure on transport. There has been much discussion on public-private partnerships, and they have been criticised, but the Executive must seriously examine alternative means of securing funding. My party and I believe in investment in public services, but it seems almost impossible to obtain the necessary investment in transport.

I would like the Minister and the Department to seriously consider the good work that the three cross- border local authority networks have done. In the past ten years, the eastern border counties body, the Irish Central Border Area Network (ICBAN) and the North- West Region Cross-Border Group have completed several transport studies.

In particular, it is important to get investment in both rail and road transport in order to develop the north-west region successfully. Living in a constituency that does not contain one mile of motorway, I see daily the handicap that that constitutes to the business community and the commuter.

In order to successfully develop the region from east to west and from north to south, we must target investment in transport. Other Members referred to over-dependency on car transport. Over 90% of passenger kilometres in Northern Ireland are attributed to car transport; this is out of kilter with our efforts to achieve a sustainable transport system.

I welcome the take-note debate and hope that further consultation will lead to an improved transport system.

I give a general welcome to the proposed regional transport strategy, and I thank the Minister and the departmental officials for its production. The decision to grasp the nettle of addressing the issue of prolonged underinvestment in our transport infrastructure is long overdue. We must hope that we can quickly advance the consultation process to the final strategy and begin its much needed implementation. Much has been said by the Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson and other Committee members, and I support their input to the debate.

The proposed areas of spending in the total regional transport strategy funding level are a fair reflection of our population base as shown in the Belfast metropolitan area and other urban and rural areas, with the regional strategy transport network rightly seen as overarching.

Given the much higher level of metres per head of population for road infrastructure in rural areas, the Minister will be aware of my concern about appropriate funding provision for roads maintenance in those areas. I seek his assurance that that factor is adequately provided for in the proposed strategy.

The funding split between transport modes will continue to be the catalyst for discussion both in and beyond the House. I am concerned about the modal emphasis, particularly in the Belfast metropolitan area and other urban areas.

Reference has been made to the Committee for Regional Development's fact-finding mission to mainland Europe. I found the visit an intensive and valuable exercise, and thank the Committee staff for their excellent organisation and the service that they provided for the Members involved. The results of the Committee's investigation will contribute to the consultation process, and, I trust, be taken on board by the Minister and the Department.

I am convinced that the modal split, particularly in the Greater Belfast area, must take cognisance of European developments in the use of light rail, tramways, buses and heavy rail in a fully integrated way. It must utilise the most efficient mode for the population density and topography in the area.

To encourage modal shift, such an integrated system will require other ancillary actions such as the provision of park-and-ride facilities; shared terminals; integrated ticketing and timetabling; clearway routes; and financial incentives - or perhaps disincentives.

With regard to funding for rural areas, I support the commitment to improve the highway system, particularly the road maintenance and strategic highway improvements. However, will the Minister consider working towards dual carriageway status for all the key transport corridors within the rural strategic transport network? Given the dependence on the roads network for freight distribution, particularly in the west, such a commitment is vital for the economic success of the entire region. Unlike Ms Morrice, I welcome the recognition in section 6.21 of the summary that

I remind Members that buses also use these roads. The ability of people to travel in rural areas must be improved. While I welcome the proposed increase in investment in rural bus services, I am still to be convinced that the strategy is enough.

In conclusion, section 8.2 of the summary reminds us that

However, note the health warning that this will happen

I trust that the Executive and the Assembly will note fully the document before the House and ensure that the final regional transportation strategy receives the necessary resources to enable its full implementation.

I would like to begin by congratulating the Minister and the Department for Regional Development on the proposed regional transportation strategy. Extensive research has been carried out to identify fully the different transport needs of society. The document is unique in that it distinguishes between urban and rural areas in the Province. It also looks at the Belfast metropolitan area as a separate entity. That is an extremely important basis for the document as those different areas experience transport problems which are unique to them. For example, someone living in the Belfast area experiences problems such as congestion and limited parking in Belfast city centre, whereas someone living in a rural area complains of a lack of public transport services or the poor condition of the roads. The strategy goes a long way towards addressing the complex transportation issues which Northern Ireland faces now and in the future. It is a very positive document, which examines in great detail the methods by which we can achieve a transport system that we can be proud of.

Transport issues affect everyone who lives and works in Northern Ireland, which is why this strategy is of relevance to the entire population. The proposed strategy is also very timely, as it looks at what can be achieved over the next 10 years and puts forward innovative measures to meet those goals.

Northern Ireland has the lowest roads expenditure in the UK. The level of funding for public transport has been insufficient, and this has led to a highly underdeveloped transport system and a road infrastructure that is crying out for investment. Urgent action on roads and public transport infrastructure and services is required if we are to prevent further deterioration.

Research has shown that there is an over-reliance here on road-based transport, with the car being the favourite mode of transport. The document has taken this fact and examined various methods by which we can move away from a transport system that is dominated by car use to a much more balanced and integrated system. That is not to say that this strategy ignores car use or the road network; in fact, it does quite the opposite. The document highlights the reality that the road network is of prime importance to the functioning of Northern Ireland. We have an extensive road network - it totals some 25,000 km. The document does not neglect the fact that roads are the dominant mode of internal transport here, accounting for 96% of passenger traffic.

Research, which was carried out to form this strategy, has shown that roads are of high importance to the public. It is a fact that most people want to see better road maintenance and the building of new roads and bypasses. This is hardly surprising, given a report by the Northern Ireland Audit Office on the structural maintenance of roads which noted a need to double the current maintenance budget in order to address the backlog which totals £120 million.

I would like to turn my focus to the public transport system in Northern Ireland. Our public transport system, mainly due to a combination of underfunding and the increase in use of the private car, has declined to an all-time low level. Unfortunately, due to this lack of expenditure we have been unable to make much needed improvements, which is why we have inadequate facilities and an old bus fleet. The average age of a bus in Northern Ireland is around 12 years old, which is unbelievable, given that the most innovative buses are in fact manufactured some 30 miles away, in Ballymena.

The availability of bus services has also been slowly declining, and frequencies on some routes operated by Ulsterbus and Citybus have decreased, leading to a year-on-year reduction in route kilometres. Research has shown that if we are to get car users to switch to public transport, then improvements to the public transport system are required urgently. Certain criteria must be achieved. People want to see an efficient and reliable service that offers value for money, and improved and increased routes which can reach some of the most isolated communities. Research has also shown that if people were within reasonable walking distance of a bus stop, they would be more inclined to use public transport.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Like most of the Members, I regret that we have only five minutes each in which to speak, but I will make the best of it.

The document contains a great deal of information and gives us a lot to work with. I have not been able to examine it in any great detail, but I am sure that I will be able to do so over time. The overarching objectives of the proposed regional development strategy are promoting a strong economy, protecting the environment and developing a more inclusive society. Achievement of those objectives depends very much on investment and where that investment is placed. Of course, there have been decades of underspending and underinvestment west of the Bann, and I wonder if this strategy will be any different from those we have had in the past.

People who live in rural areas have few options. This strategy, like others, seems to point towards most of the funding ending up in Belfast or the Greater Belfast area. As a consequence, rural areas will suffer. If the Belfast metropolitan plan is to be carried out to its fullest extent, those plans to push for movement on the rail issue will suck up much of the funding - albeit that those plans are worthwhile. Therefore, the fact that there are fewer options for those in rural areas will mean that a great deal of funding will disappear into those other areas and away from the rural areas west of the Bann. The roads there are poor, maintenance is a problem, and it seems that the budget will not alleviate that problem in the long or medium term.

Improving public transport is the best way forward. Thirty per cent of people have no car; 50% of people in Belfast have no access to a car. Those are fairly significant figures that must be taken into account. However, there are difficulties with implementing the strategy. At the moment, public transport is underused. On the main routes into Stormont in the morning, you could sit beside a bus lane for well over half an hour and not one bus would pass - and if one did, it would probably only have one or two passengers on board. We talk about value for money and the changes that will take place in the coming years. Any changes will be costly if we continue to use resources, such as bus lanes, as we have been doing. That will also encourage people to continue their love affair with the motor car - something that we have probably picked up from the Americans.

With regard to people cycling to work, at present there is not sufficient room on most roads to allow bicycles plus cars to travel without creating tailbacks, and there are consequential risks to cyclists. We have all this to grapple with, and it is not going to be easy. There is a need to get people out of their cars, and the Belfast metropolitan area is probably one of the first areas where we should make a move on that. People go from Belfast to Lisburn and vice versa, and it does not make much sense if there is one person to a car and tailbacks to and from Saintfield.

The strong push for rail is correct in its overall thrust, but it works against rural areas. Rural areas do not have that option, and, as far as we are concerned, value for money comes into the equation. Ninety-five per cent of deliveries of heavy freight are by road, and the doubling of road freight is causing more problems on the roads. The past strategy certainly had no vision for extending the rail network to Portadown, Armagh, Monaghan, Omagh, Strabane and Derry. Heavy vehicles have an impact on the ability to improve road safety, and it is vital to reduce the number of lorries and overloading. Recently the A4 has had a spate of fatal accidents, and passing bays or slow lanes for agricultural vehicles are the sort of thing we are looking for to reduce the death toll on that road and many other key roads in the area. Go raibh maith agat.

I was on the fact-finding group that visited Europe last week, and, as the Deputy Chairperson stated, our eyes were opened by the co-ordination and management in place there. If we started tomorrow morning, it would be 25 years before we could even hope to achieve anything near what they have.

I welcome the document, which is the result of co-operation between the Minister, his officials and the Committee. We worked long and hard on this, and on some page or other Committee members will see their personal input reflected. I certainly welcome the publication.

Almost everyone who has spoken has made reference to the rural situation and the problems of rural transportation in the proposed strategy, and I also wish to make some comments on that. No individual section of rural society can be singled out as suffering more than another by the unavailability of proper rural transport. However, those who would benefit most from such a provision include senior citizens who, for a variety of reasons, cannot provide personal transport, young people who have limited financial resources or are too young to own or drive a vehicle and rural mothers and housewives stranded in their homes all day if the family cars are required by their spouses to get to and from work.

Recently we have heard from other Committees, and in Question Time, about targeting social need and equality for all citizens. Only a fully acceptable regional transportation strategy will provide a level of equality for rural and isolated communities which will match, or come close to matching, the service available to their urban counterparts. I suppose parity of esteem is another phrase I could use, with everyone being equal.

I want to concentrate on the A1, an old hobby horse of mine. It is somewhat ironic that the last day we spoke on the regional transportation strategy, we recorded the death that morning of a French lady killed on that very road. This morning another death occurred on the same road between Newry and the border. I welcome the series of maps in the consultation paper which at least displays an acknowledgement of the pending and long overdue upgrading of the A1 route between Loughbrickland and the border at Killeen. Perhaps I am being a bit selfish here, but I would be more pleased if a section or a chapter, or even a sentence, had been devoted to the Euro-route. For decades we have been told by bureaucrats, senior officials and high-profile elected representatives of the importance of the development of a Euro-route to service the eastern seaboard of the island and to run between the key ports of Larne and Rosslare.

I welcome the stage that the proposals have reached, and I call on the Minister to assure the Assembly and, more importantly, local people, commuters and the haulage industry that delays will not be allowed to interfere with the strategy and its planned programme for the A1.

I do not intend to introduce any additional points regarding the A1 and its place in the strategy at this stage. However, I call on the Minister and his officials to initiate a further plan in an effort to upgrade the route to motorway status soon.

If we are to become fully integrated Europeans, enjoying the same quality of life as our fellow Europeans, it is only right to expect that the drive time for the 100-mile trip between Dublin and Belfast should be similar to that over the same distance on the roads of France, Germany or Italy.

I also seek an assurance from the Minister that every euro outside Peace II and INTERREG is made available to the regional transportation project, and that he will demand that the powers that be at Westminster will draw down funds from Brussels, which are there for the asking, but which can be obtained only through the Chancellor's office. Are we losing out on EU funding because of the Chancellor's inaction? I want to emphasise the need to get work started on the A1 - tomorrow morning if possible. I can make no more urgent plea than that.

TOP

I welcome the regional transportation strategy; it is vital for Northern Ireland's economic and social well-being, and travelling methods are crucial to the success of industry, agriculture and tourism. Further investment is necessary across the board, but rural areas have been neglected for far too long - no wonder that people in Belfast cannot find their way into the country.

I invited some businessmen to the Cookstown area. At the end of the motorway they were completely lost, and one man said that he could travel no further on such a road and that he wanted to go home.

As a Member for Mid Ulster - which has no rail network and a limited bus service - I bring it home to the Assembly that services in rural areas are more in need of improvement than those anywhere else. Thirty per cent of the people do not have a car at their disposal. Mid Ulster is a major rural area, and there is no excuse for a limited service.

It has been said that Mid Ulster does not have a road that even looks like a motorway let alone a railway line, yet people from Mid Ulster are expected to travel to work in Belfast. We are disadvantaged when it comes to road transport. School buses can travel on many rural roads; therefore, the same roads should also be accessible to public transport. If that is not financially viable, public transport and school buses should be combined in order to facilitate those going to school or travelling to work.

In rural areas schoolchildren often have no way to get home if they cannot travel on the school bus; therefore, they may lose out on beneficial after-school activities.

Someone has to pay for good public transport, and a toll system on specialised roads and bridges has been suggested. A community transport system is being promoted in the Cookstown area. The hire of a bus costs 10 pence a mile plus the price of the driver.

Does the Minister agree that Belfast International Airport is the most important route to transport goods from the Province to other parts of the world? However, does it have a railway station to convey passengers to other destinations? No, it does not. There is no other country in the Western World with an airport of that calibre without that facility. The prospect of Lisburn becoming a city is another factor that must be taken into account.

Since this is a 10-year plan, which is unlikely to be completed for 25 years if funding is not available, an airport line would be a vital addition to the railway network. However, there are cost implications, but to be without improved transport for another 10 or 25 years would be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. We must not allow all our railway lines be closed in one fell swoop.

Northern Ireland is growing and evolving, and we must develop our transport system in advance so that we do not hold back our industries, our tourist potential and the general economic and social well-being and safety of our people. In this computer age, new ideas are coming forth daily. Let us not look at the impossible, and let us avoid the short-sightedness that could restrict our development of Northern Ireland as an area which exports people for their expertise and imports them for leisure. I hope that now that we have a devolved Government, all the concerns of rural people will be considered as well as those of people living in cities.

I welcome the regional transportation strategy. I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister and his Department for the provision of the Comber bypass, which is an integral part of the regional strategy. After 28 years of campaigning for it, it is a welcome decision in that area.

I want to focus on one aspect of the regional transportation strategy: public transport and its accessibility, specifically in my constituency of Strangford, which is a rural area. The number of constituents who come into the advice centre in Newtownards to complain about the bus service is staggering. Translink is a business and must operate as such, but customer satisfaction is what keeps them in business.

Let me illustrate this. One of my constituents, an elderly lady in her eighties, lives in a rural townland down the Ards Peninsula and regularly caught the bus at 9.10 am for a doctor's appointment in Newtownards. One morning the bus did not arrive. There was no indication that it would not come. Again we find that this public transport company failed to let its customers know of its plans. Customer satisfaction has been the fall-down. We were told that there were too few people using that particular service to sustain its viability, but its removal and the way that it was done left that pensioner stuck for two hours on a cold January morning until the next bus arrived.

That is not the only example. A university student informed me that it was cheaper for him to pay upwards of £200 a month for a car than to have the hassle and expense of using public transport. That is contrary to what we are trying to achieve in the regional transportation strategy. He complained that he had to get a bus and two trains to attend university in Jordanstown. That could take up to two hours each way. He spent four hours travelling during the day; he could have used that time more effectively for study, or by earning the money to study.

It is ridiculous that trains and buses have been slower for some in the past year than they were 40 years ago. That student indicated that he is not the only student with that predicament. He said that many students found that getting themselves deeper into debt by buying a car was better than relying on public transport where there were delays and hold-ups, such as having to sit around a station for 20 minutes because of leaves on the track. That is one example. Students could miss lectures and connecting buses. It is already hard for them to revise and to complete their dissertations and essays without adding two to four hours of travel into the equation. We must consider that when we are talking about a regional transportation strategy. It must be workable, accessible and on time, so that people can get to important appointments with their doctors; so that students are not spending a fortune in money and time trying to get to class; and so that pensioners and young mothers are not stranded because they live in a hamlet and not a large town.

There has been one bright spot in relation to public transportation - the community transport schemes, such as Peninsula Community Transport Ltd scheme based in Strangford, which the Department for Regional Development has helped to fund. Two doctors who recognised the huge shortfall in transportation needs for local communities - whether to get to the doctor, to take disabled children out for the day, or even for rural families to get their weekly shopping - initiated these organisations. That has been successful.

With population growth, the shortfall between transportation and transportation needs is increasing. For example, in September I had parents queuing up to complain that the school buses were dangerously oversubscribed. Some parents had to send their children to school even earlier so that they arrived there safely. Problems such as these will continue to grow over the years as the population increases. In the Newtownards district, the population has increased by 22·2%. District population in the whole of the borough has increased by 26·3%.

Newtownards has good potential for further development in transport using the former Belfast to Comber railway line - the E-way, as many people know it. That idea should be taken on board, and perhaps the Minister could examine it. Rural transport needs to be accountable to the environment, and that is why it needs to work with the Roads Service. The state of the roads is of concern both to the businesses and residents of the area. Erosion of the roadside has become a huge problem in rural areas. Cars and lorries are getting bigger, but the roads have not changed in 50 years. The lorries and cars are taking away some of the banks and grass areas, and that has to be looked at in the overall strategy.

The Strangford area is famed for its beauty, but that has been marred by the inadequacy of the public transport provision and the quality of the road network. If public transport is not funded correctly, it will continue to fail to deliver on its commitment. The needs of a rural community can be met only when a satisfactory system is in place, and only then will the number of people using public transport increase.

Like other Members, I welcome some parts of the report. However, the section of the report that deals with rural roads and communities will not tackle the real problems. That section needs to be revisited, and more work needs to be done on it. I will explain why.

The report addresses the issues of tackling marginalisation and ending isolation. Accessing homes in many rural communities depends on private roadways, and in some cases, many miles of private roadways. Some of those roadways are substandard and in a very bad state of repair. The residents in those isolated areas include the elderly and the disabled, and I presume that the report is referring to those people.

However, when those people go to the Department for Regional Development to ask for help with their roads, they are quickly told to go away and that there will not be any help for them. They are told that they do not meet the criteria. I know some of those people, and I am sure that other Members do also. Those people then try to access money from some of the Peace programmes. They put in their applications, and there is a great deal of merit in those applications. However, the funding bodies divert those applications to the appropriate Government Department - in the case of roads, to the Department for Regional Development. Its answer is, "No, sorry. There is no way that funding should be diverted to that cause, no matter how needy." The Department's reason is that the proposals do not meet its criteria.

The report addresses the needs of rural communities, and at the same time criteria are being applied to them, the criteria that the Department for Regional Development applies to a multimillion-pound housing development in a large town. The requirements are a road at least four and a half metres wide, a footpath and this and that, plus several coats of tarmac. After that, people can come back and the Department might consider matters further. That whole area needs to be revisited. As long as the Department continues to use those criteria, it will ensure that the very people that it is paying lip-service to in this document will continue to be marginalised and isolated.

I know of several communities that have applied for funding - not to the Department for Regional Development, but to Europe or some other body - and invariably they receive that response. When the applications are referred to the Department for Regional Development, it says that they cannot be approved. All that those communities want in the twenty-first century is basic access to their houses. We have the Department's criteria, supposedly for rural communities, but they are applied to the multimillion-pound developers. There is something illogical, unfair and not quite right in the way that the Department deals with rural communities.

I am happy that the Minister is present at the debate. The point that I highlighted will be a key element in tackling the transport needs of those who live in isolated areas. The money will be available for that purpose at no cost to the Department for Regional Development, because it is derived from the peace and reconciliation fund. Many of the areas that I referred to are cross- community - those who live there share the same roads, and they want to be able to drive or walk along them safely without having to negotiate deep puddles of water, as has been the case in recent weeks. I hope that a means of applying sensible and appropriate criteria to rural communities can be found.

TOP

I am grateful to Members for their contributions, and I will try to respond to as many of them as possible. I will respond in writing to those that I do not get the opportunity to refer to. I also hope to make some personal observations on the matter as one elected representative to others.

When I opened the debate, I said that I wanted to thank certain key individuals, and I mentioned the Committee for Regional Development. I wish to record my appreciation of some of those who have been engaged in the preparation of the proposed strategy.

I have been involved in elected politics for over a quarter of a century. During most of that period, I have been on the other side of the counter. I have met and locked horns with Government Ministers and their officials. Members will not be surprised to learn that I have often played an adversarial role, and sometimes an almost combative one. In doing so, there is a tendency not to appreciate the calibre of the public servants who service our democratic institutions. One of the most valuable experiences I have had as a Minister is to get to know the army of dedicated officials who passionately labour to improve services and provision for everyone in Northern Ireland. I heard the comment of the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development, and I know that he and his Committee members, who have spent countless hours in the company of those same people, will share my assessment.

In today's context, I want to commend, in particular, the key officials who were involved in the preparation of the proposed strategy. I hope that Members will agree that they have provided an excellent document for the consideration of the House and the public. It would also be appropriate to mention the panel of experts who provided specialist advice for their contribution. I thank Prof David Begg, Mr David Lock, Prof Austin Smyth and Mr Stephen Kingon. I also express my gratitude to Mrs Joan Whiteside, the chairperson of the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, who worked alongside the panel, and the Department's specialist adviser.

When I moved into the Department for Regional Development, I, like every other elected representative, had a sense of the shortcomings of the infrastructure in the Province. However, during my first-day briefings, I was shocked to see the audit of our roads, transport, water and sewerage infrastructures. I learnt of the scale of the massive underfunding that there has been, and of the shortfall in the provision that we need. That is the appalling legacy of direct rule.

I spent the early part of my tenure in office highlighting the need for additional funding for that infrastructure. I am glad to say that over that period there has been a growing recognition of that need. That is not surprising, because under devolution we are governed by a group of people who live in Northern Ireland, who get reactions from people in Northern Ireland, and who know the roads and transportation needs.

A start has been made on additional funding. Trains have already been mentioned - £103 million was allocated as a result of the AD Little review. One of the key elements has been the recognition by the Department of Finance and Personnel, and the statement by the then Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mark Durkan, that roads and transport were up there alongside health and education as priorities for Northern Ireland public expenditure.

It was right for him to reach that conclusion, and it was proper for him to say it. It is all the more proper as it starts to feed its way into the public expenditure programme. However, it was not enough to have an idea of what was wrong. Therefore, this strategy forms an essential part of the way forward. I call it more than a vision. Undoubtedly it looks 10 years ahead to what things could be like, but it also maps out the way forward and recognises the hard lessons that have to be learnt.

Money is needed. Many Members have said that we have to pay for these improvements and that we have to get the money from somewhere. We have tried to make a realistic assessment of the funds that will be necessary to do the job and the shortfall that we can expect if we extrapolate public expenditure over 10 years. We have looked at how we can raise the shortfall of £950 million.

In many ways it is more than a vision; it is a vision with legs. It is a strategy with a way forward showing how it can take us through to the goals that it has laid out. I emphasise that this is not the strategy - it is a proposed strategy. It is there for consultation; it is there to hear what Members have to say. It is there to hear what the public has to say, and I will be interested to hear the Regional Development Committee's views, particularly in the light of their European experience, which the Chairperson mentioned. I look forward to hearing some of the lessons that they have learnt in Europe and how they may be applied to Northern Ireland.

We have a very good consultation document that I hope will initiate a debate. I hope that it will be an informed debate, because I suspect that at least one of today's speeches was made without having reference to the hard work of reading the document. If I get a chance, I will come to that in due course.

I will respond to some of the individual issues that were raised. I commend the Committee for the positive role that it has played, and the Chairperson referred to the great challenge of securing the £950 million. On pages 26 and 27 of the report you will see the consequences of not finding the money, and that was the hardest lesson that I had to learn. Those two pages picture the bleakest backcloth that one could imagine about the prospects for Northern Ireland on the basis of things continuing as they are with the present level of funding.

Among the 12 points that are laid out on pages 26 and 27: there will be very heavy congestion almost leading to gridlock; the roads infrastructure will be in an even worse state of maintenance as the backlog grows; there will be poorer services on public transport - even poorer than exist at present. That is the menu, not if people cut back on expenditure, but if it remains the same. That will be the future for Northern Ireland if we do not do anything in addition to what we have at present.

That is why the Chairperson is right to refer to the great challenge of getting that other £950 million and how essential it is for Northern Ireland. He is right to say that our economy will benefit from better transportation, and he is also right to talk about the health benefits of fewer accidents. I will read the correct figures, and not those that were imparted by the Member for North Down, Ms Morrice, who seems to prefer to look at the diagram on page 69 rather than the one on page 127.

If she were to look at the diagram on page 127, she might pour a little less ridicule on the statistics.

A number of Members, not least the Chairperson, raised the importance of the north-west. I believe that we will hear much from the north-west lobby over the next weeks and months. We have one regional transportation strategy, and, as was indicated, transportation plans will flow from that. In whatever scenario we go forward, we will be paying close attention to the needs of the north-west. 'Shaping Our Future' recognises the importance of the north-west, and its daughter document, 'Regional Transportation Strategy', will also do that. Whether that means a separate plan that will look at the transportation needs of the north-west or whether they will be incorporated into the wider network is a matter that we will leave for discussion over the coming weeks.

The Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee made reference to the under-utilisation of European funding. He is right that, in diagrammatical form in the document, we do draw attention to the £10 million that could come from European funding to make up the whole of the £950 million additional funds. However, while we have identified that £10 million, which was principally sourced through the Peace II and INTERREG III programmes, there is a further £52·3 million, which is perhaps somewhat hidden in the document. It is in the building sustainable prosperity European programme, which is additional to the UK nationally and is anticipated in public expenditure baselines.

Reference was made to rail freight. Unlike Europe where there is considerable potential for rail freight, Northern Ireland's potential is somewhat limited because the distances involved are quite small. Distances of well over 200 miles are needed to make rail financially viable. Less than one quarter of 1% of freight moving into or out of Northern Ireland is by rail, so we have to consider the size of Northern Ireland and the limitations that come as a result of that.

I want to make reference to the comments made by the Deputy Chairperson, Mr McFarland. He also had the experience of the European findings. I look forward to hearing of his experiences and seeing to what extent we can incorporate his ideas, through the consultation process, into any full strategy that comes forward. He referred to congestion tolling; I do not wish to be the person to experiment with these things. We have to get it right here. Other people are learning lessons, and many people in Northern Ireland might prefer that they go through that more painful experience and that we learn the lessons from them. It does not form an essential part of the £950 million. If money can come from that source, clearly it can take some of the pressure off other areas that need some of the £950 million or allow us to have a surplus and a supplementary aspect to the regional transportation strategy.

Mr McFarland also made reference to the Executive programme funds. Our proposals in this regard are realistic. The Executive programme funds may not live for the whole 10 years, and if they do not, the money will - and some of us believe that this is the right thing anyway - go back to the Departments and lift the level of the amount that would come to the Department for those purposes. Based upon what the Executive have released in the past, the £500 million of Executive programme funds is a realistic target for us, and I hope we can bring that about.

I want to move on to my Colleague, the Member for Foyle, Mr Hay. He referred to the historic underfunding that there has been and the difficulties in rural settings. I was glad to hear at least one Member of the House indicate that if we had an adequate public transportation service, the Member would use it.

It is to be hoped that we can do that. Much of the debate has been about the balance that must be struck. When some Members sat down I got the impression that they felt that public transport would be good for other people and that that would make life easier on the roads for them. We must change the whole culture of public transport. We have not done that. One Member suggested that it might take 20 to 30 years to make the modal shift. That is probably right. Northern Ireland is holding back on the shift towards public transportation because of its heavy reliance on motor cars. The statistics on the increase in licensed vehicles over the last decade show us out in front with 31%, while Scotland has 19%, England has 16% and Wales has14%.

The challenge facing us is huge, but the proposed strategy provides a blueprint to enable us to take a significant and vital step to achieving our goals. It will also provide the basis for delivering a transportation system fit for the twenty-first century.

It seems that the Department's evaluation of the £325 million that might come from the private sector was thought to be unrealistic. The experience and achievement in Great Britain were taken into account, and we can achieve that figure.

In roads and transport Northern Ireland is capital intensive in the provision of our bus fleet and trains and in relation to roads. Our infrastructure is high in capital expenditure. The room for private sector initiatives, such as private finance initiatives, is all the greater, and I have a dedicated division - dedicated, in every sense - within the Department considering what is possible. We will want to consider these issues with the Committee for Regional Development.

Many Members expressed a feeling that the way in which we are treating rural dwellers is harsh. One Member for Mid Ulster, Mr Armstrong, who is not present, stressed that the Department was almost discriminating in favour of the Belfast area. I draw his attention to page 50 of the regional transportation strategy document, which looks at the funding for the four areas - the regional strategic transport network, the Belfast metropolitan area, the other urban areas and the rural areas. The pie chart shows that the rural areas have 33% of the funding, which is the highest of the four slices. The Belfast metropolitan area is receiving only 24%. It is important to recognise that there are considerable problems in rural areas, such as roads maintenance. It is intended that a high proportion of the expenditure on roads maintenance will go to rural areas, which will benefit all people living in rural Northern Ireland.

Mr Ford indicated that the £80 million of developer contributions might be coming too late. We are where we are now, and I was not in the Department for Regional Development 10 years ago when it would have been nice to have got money out of developers. It is not simply commercial development that we are talking about. The regional development strategy shows that there is a significant house-build programme. The figure of £80 million takes account of that. If we can supplement that figure with funding from commercial developers, we will be in an even stronger position.

I have not forgotten about the importance of walking and cycling in the context of the transportation strategy. About 5% of additional funding is allocated to walking and cycling, and about 3% of the total proposed strategy expenditure will be for walking and cycling. They are as important as other modes of transport.

I assure Mr Ford that I have not forgotten about the importance of railways. However, the key issue is that we were facing the inevitable closure of Northern Ireland's railway network. Undoubtedly, had devolution not come to Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Office and the Government would have taken that step. The Dublin to Belfast line might have been spared, but there would certainly have been nothing left north of Ballymena. The Whitehead line and the line from Antrim to Knockmore would have been closed. Therefore, it was important for the Department to consolidate the rail network to ensure that it could be saved and given a real chance to be part of the future of public transportation.

The AD Little report gave us options. The Executive chose the option of consolidation for funding. The idea is to consolidate the rail network around a core, build it up, make it viable and attractive, put new trains on it and ensure good service. We want to persuade the Member for Foyle to leave his car behind and get the train to Belfast, where, it is to be hoped, one of his Colleagues will collect him from the station if he does not wish to get on a bus. We have that opportunity, and we have funding in place for 23 new train sets. We can show people what it is possible to do with the railways. If they can be built up and made more attractive to other people besides the Member for Foyle, we could examine the options of enhancing and expanding the network. The right thing to do is to concentrate on the core and make it attractive in the hope of reversing the decline of the rail network.

This strategy has been called a roads-based system. It is easy for people to say that the Department should put more money into public transport rather than roads. I want to give the House some statistics - not to bamboozle, but to inform the debate. Public transport accounts for about 4% of use at present. However, 16% of the Department's budget is for public transport. That indicates considerable recognition of the issue by the Department at present. Under the proposed strategy, the percentage will be increased to 32%, which means that twice the current percentage of funding will be available for public transport.

It would be nice if everybody, except those for whom the car is essential, would use public transport. That is not possible. It will take a long time to effect that modal shift and get people away from viewing the car as an extension to the home. The first step is to offer them an attractive alternative. We could use a big stick and threaten people with tolls and congestion and parking charges. However, the Department recognises the need to make a major start to the strategy by increasing public transport funding from 16% to 32%. It constitutes recognition that there must be a push towards public transport. Many Members mentioned the space that is taken up on the road by four buses, by comparison with 100 cars - one did so in graphic terms. That point illustrates how public transport contributes to alleviating roads congestion.

One of the first statistics that I obtained when I took up ministerial office was that within 20 years the number of vehicles on the roads will have doubled unless there is a push towards public transport. Anybody who travels on the Saintfield Road or through the Sandyknowes roundabout will recognise how the state of Northern Ireland's transportation system would be affected by a doubling of traffic levels.

I realise that I am running out of time. However, I will reflect on the responses that I received in the House today, and on the further responses that I will get from the Committee for Regional Development and the public during the next 10 weeks, before formulating the final draft for the Assembly's consideration. I hope that I will have done so before the summer recess. I commend the proposed strategy to the House and to the people that we all serve.

Assembly: Environment Committee

Resolved:

Assembly: Agriculture and Rural Development Committee

Resolved:

Assembly: Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee

TOP

Assembly Standing Orders

Mr Speaker:

There are two motions to amend Standing Orders. I propose to conduct one debate only, because both motions are on the same issue. I shall call the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures to move the first motion. If the House wishes, the debate will take place on both motions. When those who wish to speak have done so, I will call the Chairperson to make his winding-up speech, if necessary. I will put the Question on the first motion before asking the Chairperson to formally move the second motion, putting it to the House without debate.

I remind the House that because the motions relate to changes to Standing Orders they require cross- community support. If the necessary support is apparent, that might be provided simply by a collection of voices.

I beg to move

Both motions to amend Standing Orders are linked. Therefore I will speak on them together. The purpose of the first amendment is to close a gap in the Standing Order that relates to circumstances in which business falls to more than one Committee. Standing Order 48, as it is currently drafted, contains two provisions that relate to the overlap of Committee business. The first part states that where there is an overlap of business, the Chairpersons of the affected Committees will consult with one another and agree on which Committee should take the lead on the subject under consideration. The second part provides that if the two Committees cannot reach an agreement, the matter will be referred to the Business Committee for arbitration. However, the Standing Order, as presently drafted, is not as specific as it should be, because provisions apply only to Statutory Committees and not to Standing Committees. For example, because of its cross-cutting remit, the Committee of the Centre regularly seeks the views of other Committees that may have input into matters that it is considering. Similarly, other Statutory Committees seek the views of the Committee of the Centre.

In theory, however, the present wording of Standing Order 48 provides that a Statutory Committee is under no obligation to consult the Committee of the Centre on any matter other than legislation. Conversely, of course, the Committee of the Centre is under no obligation to consult other Statutory Committees on matters other than proposed legislation.

Fortunately, the practice to date has been one of full co-operation. However, the Committee of the Centre felt that it would be beneficial to close the loophole so that in the event, however unlikely, of a disagreement there would be a procedure in place to resolve it. Therefore the Committee of the Centre asked the Committee on Procedures to consider the issue.

On doing that, the Committee on Procedures then agreed that, rather than simply make reference to the Committee of the Centre in Standing Order 48, the provisions of the Standing Orders should be made applicable to all Committees. The Committee agreed that that could be done through a minor amendment to Standing Order 48 by removing the word "Statutory" in the Standing Order.

The change will mean that, when there is an overlap in business between any type of Committee, the Committees will, as a matter of course, seek the views of the other affected Committee or Committees before coming to a decision on the matter. Similarly, the Business Committee will arbitrate if there is a point of dispute.

As a result of that minor change, a consequential change will also be required to Standing Order 31(2), which provides that, in relation to any proposed legislation where there is an overlapping remit, the provisions of Standing Order 48 will apply to the Committee of the Centre. The proposed change to Standing Order 48 will make that reference unnecessary.

On the second motion, the Committee agreed that the changes to Standing Order 48 would require a change to the Committee section of Standing Orders. I emphasise that that is a presentational change, and therefore there are no changes to the wording of the Standing Orders in that section. The proposed restructuring, as set out in the Order Paper, will ensure that the Standing Orders appear in a more logical fashion.

<< Prev